AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX vs Intel Xeon 678X Comparison

The Intel Xeon 678X and AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX represent two starkly different approaches to high-core-count computing, and the benchmark data shows a clear generational and architectural divide. The Xeon 678X wins 12 of 16 head-to-head tests, including every Cinebench multi-core and single-core test, while the Threadripper PRO 3995WX counters with four PassMark wins in integer-heavy and data-encryption workloads. The Xeon’s advantage is anchored in its Granite Rapids architecture, 5 nm process, and much higher boost clock, while the Threadripper’s edge comes from having 16 more cores and a larger L3 cache.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon 678X leads with an average benchmark score of 193477, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX trails at 171748 — a difference of roughly 12.7%.

Q: How does the Xeon 678X compare to its nearest rival in average score?

A: The Xeon 678X is nearly tied with the AMD EPYC 9335, which scores 194228 and is only 0.4% ahead. It also beats the Intel Xeon 6740E by 3.1% and the AMD EPYC 8534P by 4.5%.

Q: What is the biggest single-test win for the AMD processor?

A: The Threadripper PRO 3995WX’s largest victory is in PassMark data encryption, scoring 124433 versus the Xeon’s 83598 — a 32.8% advantage.

Q: Is the Xeon 678X better in single-core performance?

A: Yes, by a wide margin. In PassMark single-thread, the Xeon scores 3758 against the Threadripper’s 2595, a 44.8% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core shows the same story: 4967 for the Xeon versus 4229 for the Threadripper.

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX has 64 cores and 128 threads, compared to the Intel Xeon 678X’s 48 cores and 96 threads.

Q: What memory technology does each CPU support?

A: The Intel Xeon 678X supports DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 409.6 GB/s, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX uses DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. Both have an eight-channel memory bus.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is fundamental. The Intel Xeon 678X is built on the Granite Rapids architecture using a 5 nm process from Intel, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX uses the Zen 2 architecture on a 7 nm process from TSMC. This process difference contributes directly to the Xeon’s ability to reach a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, far above the Threadripper’s 4.20 GHz. The Xeon’s base clock is 2.40 GHz, while the Threadripper starts at 2.70 GHz, meaning the AMD part has a higher floor but a much lower ceiling.

Cache configurations also diverge sharply. The Xeon 678X packs 192 MB of shared L3 cache, but the Threadripper PRO 3995WX has 256 MB of L3. Per-core L1 and L2 caches favor the Xeon: 112 KB and 2 MB per core respectively, versus 64 KB and 512 KB per core on the Threadripper. The Xeon’s die is composed of two 598 mm² chiplets, while the Threadripper uses eight 74 mm² chiplets with 30,400 million transistors. PCIe support also differs: the Xeon offers Gen 5 with 128 lanes, while the Threadripper provides Gen 4 with the same 128 lanes. Both support ECC memory, but the Xeon uses DDR5 and the Threadripper uses DDR4 — a decisive factor in memory bandwidth, as the Xeon’s 409.6 GB/s is exactly double the Threadripper’s 204.8 GB/s.

The Xeon 678X is classified as a Server/Workstation part with an unlocked multiplier, whereas the Threadripper PRO 3995WX is a Desktop part with a locked multiplier. The Xeon also has a higher TDP at 300 W versus 280 W. The release dates underscore the generational divide: the Xeon launched in February 2026, while the Threadripper arrived in July 2020. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 4710, and the Threadripper uses AMD Socket WRX8.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Xeon 678X dominates the Cinebench suite with consistent 17.4% to 17.6% margins. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 8444 against the Threadripper’s 7190. The single-core R15 test shows a 17.6% lead (1192 vs 1014). Cinebench R20 multi-core repeats the pattern: 35185 for the Xeon versus 29961, a 17.4% edge. The R20 single-core result is 4967 versus 4229, a 17.5% lead. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 83775 for the Xeon against 71338 for the Threadripper, again a 17.4% gap.

The Xeon’s wins extend beyond Cinebench. In PassMark extended instructions, it scores 141431 versus 106423, a 32.9% advantage. PassMark find prime numbers is the Xeon’s most lopsided win: 1010 versus 566, a 78.4% margin. Floating-point math also favors the Xeon heavily, 362070 versus 277715, a 30.4% lead. PassMark physics shows a 42% advantage (7809 vs 5498). The multi-thread test gives the Xeon 98559 versus 83928, a 17.4% win. Single-thread results are decisive: 3758 versus 2595, a 44.8% lead.

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX wins four tests, all in PassMark. Data compression goes to AMD with 1841292 versus 1690896, an 8.2% edge. Data encryption is the strongest AMD result: 124433 versus 83598, a 32.8% win. Integer math favors the Threadripper at 490116 versus 405075, a 17.4% advantage. Random string sorting also goes to AMD, 188574 versus 164102, a 13% lead.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous for most workloads: the Intel Xeon 678X is the superior processor in 12 of 16 benchmark tests, and its wins are not marginal. The Xeon leads by double digits in nearly every category it wins, including a 78.4% margin in prime-number finding and a 44.8% margin in single-thread performance. The Threadripper PRO 3995WX cannot match the Xeon’s per-core efficiency or its memory bandwidth, which is exactly double. For anyone prioritizing rendering, physics simulation, floating-point math, or general single-core responsiveness, the Xeon 678X is the clear choice from this data.

However, the Threadripper PRO 3995WX is not without a niche. Its wins in data compression, encryption, integer math, and random string sorting suggest that workloads which are heavily integer-based or involve data manipulation can run faster on AMD’s 64-core design. The 256 MB L3 cache and extra 16 cores provide a real advantage in these specific tasks. The Threadripper also has a lower launch MSRP of $5489 compared to the Xeon’s $3749, but that price difference does not translate into a performance advantage in most tests. The Xeon 678X is the more versatile and faster CPU overall; the Threadripper is a specialist that wins only in a narrow set of integer-heavy operations.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ on nearly every core specification. The Intel Xeon 678X has 48 cores and 96 threads, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX has 64 cores and 128 threads. The Xeon’s base clock is 2.40 GHz and boost clock is 4.90 GHz; the Threadripper’s are 2.70 GHz and 4.20 GHz. TDP is 300 W for the Xeon and 280 W for the Threadripper. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 4710, the Threadripper uses AMD Socket WRX8. The Xeon’s architecture is Granite Rapids on a 5 nm Intel process, while the Threadripper uses Zen 2 on a 7 nm TSMC process.

Cache differences are substantial: the Xeon has 112 KB L1 and 2 MB L2 per core, with 192 MB shared L3; the Threadripper has 64 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core, with 256 MB L3. Memory support is DDR5 for the Xeon and DDR4 for the Threadripper, both eight-channel, but with bandwidths of 409.6 GB/s and 204.8 GB/s respectively. The Xeon offers PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes, the Threadripper offers Gen 4 with 128 lanes. The Xeon has an unlocked multiplier; the Threadripper does not. The Xeon’s launch MSRP is $3749, while the Threadripper’s is $5489. The Xeon’s die is 2x 598 mm², while the Threadripper’s is 8x 74 mm² with 30,400 million transistors.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon 678X is the winner for multi-core rendering and simulation. It leads the Threadripper by 17.4% in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests, making it the better option for 3D rendering, video encoding, and any workload that scales across cores with strong single-thread performance. The Xeon also wins in floating-point math by 30.4%, physics by 42%, and extended instructions by 32.9%, indicating superiority in scientific computing, engineering simulation, and any AVX-heavy workload. Its 44.8% single-thread lead means day-to-day responsiveness and lightly threaded applications will feel much faster on the Xeon. The double memory bandwidth (409.6 GB/s vs 204.8 GB/s) further solidifies the Xeon’s position for memory-bound tasks.

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX wins in four specific PassMark tests: data compression, data encryption, integer math, and random string sorting. The 32.8% encryption win is the largest AMD margin and suggests a clear advantage for cryptographic workloads, secure data handling, and VPN or database encryption tasks. The 17.4% integer math lead points to better performance in integer-heavy compilers, some database operations, and financial modeling. The 8.2% data compression win and 13% random string sorting win indicate that archival, deduplication, and text-processing pipelines may run faster on the Threadripper. These wins leverage the Threadripper’s 64 cores and 256 MB L3 cache, which benefit workloads with high data locality and parallel integer operations.

For a general-purpose workstation or server, the Intel Xeon 678X is the stronger buy based on benchmark results alone. The Threadripper PRO 3995WX is a niche processor that excels only where its extra cores and larger cache can be fully utilized in integer-heavy, data-manipulation tasks. The Xeon’s overwhelming majority of wins, including all rendering tests and single-thread performance, makes it the default recommendation for anyone who cannot guarantee that their workload matches AMD’s four specific strengths.